I'm not sure that this is true. What we know is (1) Joseph built zero customization into the original game design, and (2) at this point he hasn't endorsed any of the customization ideas suggested on these boards. (Actually, he hasn't offically weighed in on many ideas suggested on any topic.) While we can safely say that Joseph wants something quick and simple to get players started in a hurry, I don't know for certain that he would veto a simple customization option. He might like it.

He has said on numerous occasions that he does not want there to be a lot of choices at the chargen: for example

Quote:

Making six occupation charts will have the interesting side-effect of making stats more important because a player wanting a particular occupation (say, anything elven) might have to have a particular stat in order to make it happen.

As opposed the HAVING to be lucky enough to roll between 28 and 37? What is the difference? Players don't pick occupations no matter what they WANT. It's random. Having 6 charts ensures the character's occupation aligns with his best stat. That is all it does. There is no other side-effect.

I never understood the fascination of 3d6 in order. Why should player A have a significantly better PC than player B just because he had some dice luck. And if high attributes don't make significantly better PC then what is the big deal?

I never understood the fascination of 3d6 in order. Why should player A have a significantly better PC than player B just because he had some dice luck. And if high attributes don't make significantly better PC then what is the big deal?

Exactly. What is the big deal? You can play D&D with NO ability scores. Assume everything is 10, no bonuses, no penalties. Ignore limits based on ability score: All 5th level wizards can cast 3rd level spells, 13 Int not required. Just pick a class and go. People will complain all fighters are the same, right? Wrong**, In your play group if gave the same character sheet to ever player would expect the same "character" to evolve through role-play? No, of course not. John is more flamboyant than Rich who is more aggressive than Steve who is... and so on.

** Well, they will complain, that's correct. The complaints are wrong.

I never understood the fascination of 3d6 in order. Why should player A have a significantly better PC than player B just because he had some dice luck. And if high attributes don't make significantly better PC then what is the big deal?

Exactly. What is the big deal? You can play D&D with NO ability scores. Assume everything is 10, no bonuses, no penalties. Ignore limits based on ability score: All 5th level wizards can cast 3rd level spells, 13 Int not required. Just pick a class and go. People will complain all fighters are the same, right? Wrong**, In your play group if gave the same character sheet to ever player would expect the same "character" to evolve through role-play? No, of course not. John is more flamboyant than Rich who is more aggressive than Steve who is... and so on.

** Well, they will complain, that's correct. The complaints are wrong.

+d7i think that different ability scores allow even shy or less charismatic players to enjoy the game and play a specific role. Otherwise, you could have John who has a stronger personality doing everything, and the other players are like NPCs. Giving John 16 STR and only 7 INT, leaves some aspects of the game in the hands of other PCs, even if their players would've let John take over and do their job

You can play D&D with NO ability scores. Assume everything is 10, no bonuses, no penalties.

An interesting notion could be to start all character with 10's (or 8's or some other number) for their stats, then give them some number of rolls to improve a stat each level. That would allow players to customize as they grow. Kind of makes the funnel obsolete, but still something to ponder.

Not sayin' I'd want to run it that way, but it popped into my brain and I thought I'd toss it out there....

"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs, He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own." -- Gary Gygax"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" -- Dave Arneson

How about a dice pool done funnel style? By dice pool I mean, you get 25 d6s (30, 24 and 27 are also good numbers here) that you distribute, in order, among your 6 abilities. Every ability must have at least 3 dice and no more than 8 (or 6 or 9 as desired) dice. So someone who wants a fighter might decide to roll 6d6, 4d6, 6d6, 3d6, 3d6, 3d6 in order.

Now do it funnel style. 0-level characters roll 3d6 in order and note the value of all dice on their character sheets. So Str-12 (4,4,4) is different from Str-12 (6,5,1) because when that funnel char does something heroic with Strength the Judge says, "Roll a Strength d6", and if the die roll is greater than the lowest die listed, replace it immediately with the new value. So it's more likely that 6,5,1 will improve, obviously.

Gaining Strength and Agility die rolls are easy to figure out. Any "Good Idea" could be used to reward an Int roll. Good RP could be the basis for a Personality roll. Getting wounded without dying (with only d4 hp) could be an excuse for a Stamina roll. And rolling a 20 almost any time could allow a Luck roll.

The way I'm seeing it, the Judge would be encouraged to give these die rolls out somewhat stingily at the beginning of the funnel adventure and more freely as the funnel was coming to a close. So each player should only get 2-4 of these rolls and only after they've seen at least one of their three funnel characters die. The idea being that a 4d6 stat should be a bonus and 5d6 stat would be AMAZING.

This is not for inclusion in the main rules. But as a judge option in one of the planned "annuals" it would be pretty amusing. I can see the article title: "Funnel becoming stale?"

Something me and my group do: Every level, the character gets the chance to increase one ability score of their choice, by one, using the "choose score, roll 3d6, try to roll over the ability score" method. However, there has to be some sort of cost. It's mostly left up to the judge, but an example for raising strength would be the character needs to visit a gymnasium (which have existed for a very, very long time) and work out their body, paying a price in gold adjudicated by the judge.

To raise intelligence the player might have to pay for tutoring, or sit in on a philosophical lecture.

Or they can be incredibly crazy and bargain with a minor demon to raise any ability score.

I'm all for raising ability scores, but there needs to be a cost or a counter-point. And it needs to be relevant to the score. It might cost 100gp to raise STR from 10 to 11, but to raise it from 15 to 16 would cost significantly more, with the roll also being harder to make.

I'm all for raising ability scores, but there needs to be a cost or a counter-point. And it needs to be relevant to the score. It might cost 100gp to raise STR from 10 to 11, but to raise it from 15 to 16 would cost significantly more, with the roll also being harder to make.

I'm not sure I'd say that there "needs" to be a cost to raise ability scores. It can simply be a function of the level advancement process and assume that a person gains ability as they adventure.

On the other hand, if your "pay as you go" system works for you I'd give it a thumbs-up. For me, I'm pretty stingy with loot already and don't need another way to siphon it from the party cache....

"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs, He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own." -- Gary Gygax"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" -- Dave Arneson

A small increase I wouldn't mind, but when you start increasing stats every other level or something similar, it seems like the focus of the characters shifts to an emphasis on whether or not the Stat scores are high (good) enough, which often leads to the problem of min-maxing and then a dislike of anything negative.

I've watched this sort of thing happen through the years over various editions and personally I'd rather not see it happen again, but to each his own.

A small increase I wouldn't mind, but when you start increasing stats every other level or something similar, it seems like the focus of the characters shifts to an emphasis on whether or not the Stat scores are high (good) enough, which often leads to the problem of min-maxing and then a dislike of anything negative.

Agreed. Suddenly it becomes a power grab.

As an alternate thought, I suppose one could allow for much more rapid stat advancement but change the bonuses so that you'd need much higher numbers to get the old bonuses. (Maybe 13-17 for +1, 18-22 for +2, 23-27 for +3.) Tunnels & Trolls does something like this, where stats become absurd in a hurry but it takes gigantic numbers to mean much.

Not sayin' I'd like it, but it would be an alternate approach for folks who liked gaudy stat numbers.

"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs, He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own." -- Gary Gygax"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" -- Dave Arneson

In case anyone has forgotten, I'm still onboard with bholmes' "roll 3d6 every X levels against a stat, if you roll over that stat it goes up by one point". It's the X levels part I'm not sure about. I don't see the harm in every level, really.

Another benefit is that it works seamlessly with any of the alternate stat variants proposed without messing with the existing stat bonuses or penalties. I'd really like a stat "advancement" system that was built to push lower stats towards the middle. I don't think there needs to be a cost. There's a built in "gamble" with just choosing the stat to roll against. If you're feeling lucky and want to try to roll against an INT of 15, then you'll really feel rotten about it when you roll a 12 that would've boosted an 11 Stamina.

I know there are quite a few variants on bholmes' initial suggestion. But I prefer the original. It's simple, straightforward and there's a game element to it -- making it much more "fun" than a static bonus.

In case anyone has forgotten, I'm still onboard with bholmes' "roll 3d6 every X levels against a stat, if you roll over that stat it goes up by one point". It's the X levels part I'm not sure about. I don't see the harm in every level, really.

In case anyone has forgotten, I'm still onboard with bholmes' "roll 3d6 every X levels against a stat, if you roll over that stat it goes up by one point". It's the X levels part I'm not sure about. I don't see the harm in every level, really.

In case anyone has forgotten, I'm still onboard with bholmes' "roll 3d6 every X levels against a stat, if you roll over that stat it goes up by one point". It's the X levels part I'm not sure about. I don't see the harm in every level, really.

And in case anyone cares, I +3d6 this.

I award 550 XP to this.

Ah, but if you awarded 550 GP to this, you'd also be giving him the 550 XP!

"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs, He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own." -- Gary Gygax"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" -- Dave Arneson

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum